The IRS Came After Pro-Israel Groups, But Protected Hamas

"Come navigate the fine line between legal activism and material support for terrorism."

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-irs-came-after-pro-israel-groups-but-protected-hamas/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

[Order David Horowitz’s and John Perazzo’s new booklet: “Internal Radical Service: Abuse Of Taxpayer Dollars To Advance Leftwing Causes Illegally And Unconstitutionally”: CLICK HERE.]

 David Boim was only 17 years old when he was shot and killed while waiting at a bus stop north of Jerusalem. The American teenager’s parents, Stanley and Joyce, have spent a quarter of a century trying to bring Hamas, the Islamic terror group behind the attack, and its funders in the United States to justice. Their lawsuits have targeted, among others, the Holy Land Foundation which was found in federal court to have provided “material aid to Hamas” in what became the largest terrorism financing prosecution case in the United States.

The Justice Department stated that “from its inception, HLF existed to support Hamas. Before HLF was designated as a Specially Designated Terrorist by the Treasury Department and shut down in December 2001, it was the largest U.S. Muslim charity.”

It was also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The IRS had allowed money used to fund Islamic terrorists to be funneled through a tax-deductible organization. And that was not the first time or the last.

The Boims are still fighting in court over what they allege are new non-profits that are really  ‘alter egos’ that was set up after the Hamas fundraisers lost criminal and civil lawsuits.

One of those is American Muslims for Palestine.

The Boim family lawsuit alleges that “American Muslims for Palestine is merely a new name for the same terrorism funding enterprise”. Last year, a federal judge in Illinois allowed the case against AMP to move forward.

But the bereaved family is not the only one accusing AMP.

Jonathan Schanzer, Vice President of Research for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that many “high-level and mid-level figures” from the terror charities “gravitated to a new organization called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).”

Schanzer, who had formerly worked as a terrorism finance analyst at the Treasury Department, then went on to list the connections to Hamas and its front groups. He told Congress about the case of AMP board member Salah Sarsour, an alleged relative of antisemitic figure Linda Sarsour, who told Al-Jazeera “that the conference aims to keep up with and support the Palestinian people’s continuous intifada.” A 2001 FBI memo to the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) describes how Sarsour’s brother, after being arrested by Israel in 1998, told Israeli officials about Sarsour’s “involvement with Hamas and fundraising activities of HLFRD [Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development].”

American Muslims for Palestine officially deny everything. At its events, it’s another matter.

An American Muslims for Palestine conference panel titled, “Do Occupied People Have the Right to Resist their Occupation?” asserted that “it is well recognized under international law that an occupied people have the right to resist its occupation by any means necessary.” “Any means” implies support for terrorism. The panel further complained that “the US has designated most Palestinian groups as terrorist organizations” and invited attendees to, “come navigate the fine line between legal activism and material support for terrorism.”

The IRS is certainly navigating that fine line by maintaining AMP’s tax-deductible status.

Like the dismantled Hamas fundraising groups, American Muslims for Palestine receives tax-deductible funds. It does this through the Americans for Justice in Palestine

Educational Foundation (AJP). AJP got its tax-deductible status in 2010.

A year earlier, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a journalist, applied for tax-exempt status for her pro-Israel group, Z Street. The IRS informed her that it “has to give special scrutiny to organizations connected to Israel.” The lawsuit originating from the Z Street case helped roll back the curtain on the IRS bias against conservatives and pro-Israel Jewish groups.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus told Front Page Magazine, “One of the excuses given to Z Street by an IRS official was that the IRS had to make sure we were not ‘engaged in terrorism’ because we mentioned ‘terror’ in our mission statement. The part of Z Street’s mission that mentioned terror? ‘We will not engage with, negotiate with, or appease terrorists.’ Yet Z Street’s application for 501(c)(3) status was sidelined for seven years while Z Street litigated the IRS’s unconstitutional application of Viewpoint Discrimination against us.”

Despite the connections between AMP and the largest terrorism financing prosecution case in the country, the IRS appeared to have no such reservations about the anti-Israel group.

Was AMP ever asked by the IRS about its views on Islamic terrorism?

Due to the inaction of the IRS, the AMP’s networks and influence continue to expand.

AJP and AMP have created AJP Action, a 501(c)(4), which lobbies on Capitol Hill and endorses politicians: including Rep. Betty McCollum. Apart from its hostility to Israel, it’s also opposed to the Palestinian Authority, complaining that PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has been backed by Israel and the U.S., “as opposed to his Hamas rivals.”

An AJP Action policy paper critical of Fatah’s Palestinian Authority agonizes that security “has often meant repressing members of Hamas to protect Fatah’s power”.

AMP was founded by Hatem Bazian, who was once quoted calling for the mass murder of Jews. He still serves as the chairman of AMP’s national board and heads the AJP Educational Foundation. Bazian had previously fundraised for one of the Hamas charities and had tweeted an article claiming that “The Europeans who fought Nazism with arms were labeled ‘terrorist’ by Hitler. Hamas is fighting against the occupation of Palestinian lands and is labeled ‘terrorist.”

AMP’s National Policy Director Osama Abuirshaid took part in a conference with top Hamas officials in 2021. He tweeted, “Whether you love Hamas or hate her, her opponents respect her. She stands by her principles and negotiates from a position of strength.”

Taher Herzallah, AMP’s Associate Director of Outreach & Grassroots Organizing, posted on Facebook that, “Hamas’ rockets are an oppressed people’s audible cry for help.”

At an AMP event in New Jersey this year, Herzallah complained that “they make us look like terrorists if we fight back, if we throw a rock, or resist. This is a God-given right.”

“Come navigate the fine line between legal activism and material support for terrorism” indeed.

The issue with the IRS isn’t simply that it maintains a ‘hands off’ policy toward nonprofits, but that it displays a transparent political bias in selecting which organizations it goes after.

The IRS targeted Z Street and other pro-Israel groups even though there was no basis for suspecting any kind of illegal activity, but it carefully looked away from the rise of American Muslims for Palestine despite the links to previous nonprofits that had faced criminal prosecution, an extended lawsuit by the family of a terror victim and congressional testimony by a former Treasury Department specialist in sanctioning terrorist fundraisers.

Americans deserve an IRS that objectively enforces the law rather than picking and choosing its targets for partisan political reasons. As long as the IRS continues to be aligned with the Left, it will also be aligned with the Islamic terrorists who have become integrated within the Left.

And that makes the IRS a threat to national security.

UK: Muslims challenge Church of England’s ‘gay blessing’ and ‘identity politics’ in Church schools~Church of England Considers “Gender Neutral” Language for God

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/02/uk-muslims-challenge-church-of-englands-gay-blessing-and-identity-politics-in-church-schools;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Muslims in Britain are expressing “deep concern” over the Church of England’s “gay blessing” and the “identity politics” that has invaded Church of England schools, which many Muslim students attend.

Where are the concerned Christians? They are not loud enough to be heard and respected, as wokeism has invaded most mainline Churches. It is no secret that gays are being murdered in Sharia-adherent countries, and Christians who may not support the LGBTQ+ agenda are still vocal in support of the human rights of the victims. On the other hand, woke ideologues have never fought for the LGBT communities that are persecuted in Islamic countries because they are intimidated by Muslims and afraid of charges of “Islamophobia.” It is part of the woke ethos never to risk “offending” Muslims. Instead, the woke aggressively trample upon the rights of Christians in Western countries; they clearly consider Christians to be safe targets. Some Christians are now even reluctant to state their belief that God created people male and female, and that this creation forms the basis of marriage. In some churches, you will seldom if ever hear the Biblical quote: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27). In light of all this, how will the woke Church of England (CofE) react to these Muslim complaints? The Leftist/Islamic alliance has been solid in the West, but cracks in the alliance are becoming increasingly apparent.

Religious rights and freedoms are being increasingly violated due to Woke aggression. Far too many Christian churches have become so weak that they have embraced the Woke agenda, as well as the Islamic supremacist “Islamophobia” agenda to shut down speech that scrutinizes Islamic ideology and thus “offends”. These Churches have in essence lost their salt and have become easy targets for bullying. Until now, Muslims have been mostly quiet about the Woke agenda, but it would be intriguing to observe how the Woke Church of England will react to being confronted by Muslims. We have an idea of what they won’t do. They won’t call the deeply concerned Muslim community ‘homophobic’. Overall, we don’t see the Woke pushing LGBTQ+, correct pronouns on Muslims, or gender-affirming care on Muslim children in Madrassahs in the West. No one tramples their religious rights, but instead, gives them preference.

According to Anglican.Ink:

Paul Salahuddin Armstrong, Managing Director of the Association of British Muslims (AoBM) expressed his “deep concern”. He said: “The Association of British Muslims is concerned about the lack of open and inclusive discussions regarding the traditional understanding of marriage within faith communities. We are also concerned about the teaching of sexual identity politics in schools, including Church of England schools.”

How will the woke reconcile “inclusion” with the Association of British Muslims who reject their agenda? Anglican.Ink also stated:

“There is now the worrying potential of Muslim parents starting to withdraw children from CofE schools to protect them from sexual ethics contrary to their beliefs,” said the Revd Paul Eddy, Convenor of Anglican Orthodox, “and that can obviously lead to segregation of children of different faiths in some Muslim-majority cities if the CofE proceeds.”

Those Christians who do not support “sexual ethics contrary to their beliefs” are already marginalized, or even hated and smeared as “homophobic” or “transphobic,” including in many Christian schools which now fly the rainbow flag and host Pride parades. In 2019, the Church of England “issued advice to clergy and congregations recommending an adapted affirmation of baptism service to allow transgender Christians to celebrate their new identity and name.” But those who do not celebrate along with them are increasingly persecuted. The CofE has also instructed schools to “let children ‘explore gender identity.'”

Let’s see whether the woke CofE will attempt to convince the deeply concerned Muslims of the Association of British Muslims that they are “homophobic” and “transphobic.” Of course, they wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing. The mainstream media will also likely ignore the brewing conflict and continue to try to give the impression that only stuffy, stupid, bigoted, old, white Christians disagree with the woke agenda.

___________________________________________________________________

BY JAMES MURPHY

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/church-of-england-considers-gender-neutral-language-for-god;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The Church of England’s descent into “wokeness” is about to take another downward step. This spring, the church’s Liturgical Council will explore using so-called gender-neutral terms when discussing the Creator of the Universe.

The Church of England has recently announced that, while they will not “marry” homosexuals, they will offer blessings for such unions. In addition, Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Cottrell recently announced that homosexual behavior is not a sin so long as it’s within the confines of a “stable, loving, committed” relationship.

The project appears to be a reaction to criticism by the current Vicar of Ilminster and Whitelackington in South Somerset, Reverend Joanna Stobart, who recently stated that she wished the church would use “more inclusive language” and refer to God in a “non-gendered way.”

“Please could the Liturgical Commission provide an update on the steps being taken to develop more inclusive language in our authorized liturgy and to provide more options for those who wish to use authorized liturgy and speak of God in a non-gendered way, particularly in authorized absolutions where many of the prayers offered for use refer to God using male pronouns?” Stobart formally asked church leaders.

The vice-chair of the Liturgical Commission, Reverend Dr. Michael Ipgrave, the bishop of Lichfield, announced that the commission has been “exploring the use of gendered language in relation to God for several years.”

“After some dialogue between the two commissions in this area, a new joint project on gendered language will begin this spring. In common with other potential changes to authorized liturgical provision, changing the wording and number of authorized forms of absolution would require a full synodical process for approval,” Ipgrave said.

So, for Anglicans, the phrase, “Our Father, Who art in heaven,” could soon be changed to “our parental unit, Who art in heaven.”

More conservative clergy have objected to considering using non-gendered language in reference to the Almighty.

“The fact that God is called ‘Father’ can’t be substituted by ‘Mother’ without changing meaning, nor can it be gender-neutralized to ‘Parent’ without loss of meaning,” said Reverend Dr. Ian Paul, a minister at St Nic’s, Nottingham.

“Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but relate to their offspring in different ways,” Paul pointed out.

And Father Marcus Walker, the rector at St. Bartholomew in London, noted, “I just don’t think we should be misgendering God. He’s made clear what his preferred pronouns are — especially in his incarnation — so maybe we should just use them.”

Indeed, for Christians, the incarnation of God — Jesus — was indeed a male.

Still, a spokesperson for the church claimed that such a change has been under consideration for quite a while now and that God is neither male nor female.

“This is nothing new. Christians have recognized since ancient times that God is neither male nor female, yet the variety of ways of addressing and describing God found in scripture has not always been reflected in our worship,” the spokesperson told Reuters.

“There has been greater interest in exploring new language since the introduction of our current forms of service in contemporary language more than 20 years ago,” the spokesperson added.

Other Anglican branches have been exploring the idea of “gender neutrality” for God for some time now. A spokesman for the Scottish Episcopal Church — an Anglican offshoot — was quoted by the Daily Mail claiming, “The Scottish Episcopal Church has been in a gradual process of change in its liturgies over a number of years, as it moves towards less gender-specific language about both people and God.”

The spokesperson claimed that such undertakings have been in process since 1986.

“To that end, we have theological freedom in regard to how we refer to God. Ministers are free to use the language they wish — God has no gender and many choose to use gender-neutral language for God,” the spokesperson explained.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Cottrell appears to agree. In 2018, he stated, “God is not a father in exactly the same way as a human being is a father. God is not male or female. God is not definable.”

Perhaps Cottrell is correct when he says that God is not “definable.” All that we mortals have to undertake that task is His Word. But that Word — the Bible — makes clear, in no uncertain terms, that God is the Father and that His incarnation, Jesus, was most definitely a male.

The Church of England’s attempt to spin this as anything less than a capitulation to so-called woke elements of society is a joke, just as their acquiescence to the LGBT agenda last week was. And should they succeed in “gender-neutralizing” their teachings, it’s likely heresy.

 

‘JOE BIDEN IS WEAK. JOE BIDEN CAN’T STAND UP TO CHINA!’ Watch MTG Blast Biden’s SOTU

MTG: China spied and Biden LIED. The Liar in Chief came to The People’s House and lied about the economy, and the border, and was too weak & afraid to apologize to America for his failure to protect us from China. No golf claps from me. Last night I proudly represented the people.

 

Nord Stream 2 Bombshell, Twitter Execs Under Fire, and Satanic Pop Stars

Seymour Hersh cracks open the Nord Stream 2 story with a bombshell report. Devil worshipping pop stars rack up Grammys. Is American culture on a Highway to Hell?

Selwyn Duke checks in to take a closer look, as Daniel Natal breaks down the news with Rebecca Terrell for today’s episode of The New American TV with Rebecca Terrell.

Also featured: Arpa-H explained, Legislative Analysis, The Twitter Files and much more.

US, States Seek Farmland Restrictions for Foreign Nationals

US, States Seek Farmland Restrictions for Foreign Nationals

BY DAVID KELLY

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/us-states-seek-farmland-restrictions-for-foreign-nationals/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Days after the suspected Chinese spy balloon crossed the nation, Americans are questioning how our government can keep us secure and protect us from any and all threats from countries like China. This includes asking why foreign countries currently own about 897 million acres of American farm and forest land.

A Montana rancher, Michael Miller, who witnessed last week’s Chinese balloon pass overhead questioned China’s potential threat to our nation’s economy. “Like many throughout the country, Miller wonders if stricter laws are needed to bar farmland sales to foreign nationals so power over agriculture and the food supply doesn’t end up in the wrong hands,” reported the Associated Press. 

“It’s best not to have a foreign entity buying up land, especially one that’s not really friendly to us,” Miller told AP. “They are just going to take us over economically, instead of military-wise.” 

Many lawmakers across the nation feel the same way about foreign countries purchasing land, leading to at least 11 state legislatures considering measures to address their concerns. That includes Montana and North Dakota, where the “U.S. Air Force recently warned that a $700 million corn mill proposed near a military base by the American subsidiary of a Chinese company would risk national security.” 

Last week, Senators Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) introduced the Promoting Agriculture Safeguards and Security (PASS) Act “aimed at preventing China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea from investing in, purchasing, leasing or otherwise acquiring U.S. farmland.” 

In their joint press release, Tester and Rounds declared: 

“As a third-generation Montana farmer, I’m not going to sit back and let our foreign adversaries weaken our national security by buying up American farmland,” said Tester. “That’s why I’m proud to be joining my friend Senator Rounds on this bipartisan effort to prevent foreign entities from acquiring U.S. farmland and ensure our farmers have a seat at the table when the government makes decisions impacting our national security.” 

“Protecting American farmland is critical to maintaining our national security,” said Rounds. “In my travels around South Dakota, I have heard from many farmers and ranchers who are concerned about foreign adversaries owning American farmland. It is time to put a stop to this and take action. This legislation makes certain American interests are protected by blacklisting foreign adversaries from purchasing land or businesses involved in agriculture.” 

Not only are lawmakers seeking to keep foreign adversaries from investing in American land and businesses, but some are also seeking to outright ban these countries’ citizens from buying land. USA Today shared that “lawmakers in Texas, Florida, Arkansas and in Congress have proposed laws banning citizens of China from buying land, homes or other buildings in the United States.” 

A proposed bill (SB-147) in the Texas statehouse would bar purchases by people from North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China, including green-card holders, visa holders, and asylum seekers. The laws would not apply to U.S. citizens. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) earlier this year said he would sign it.  

USA Today reported that “opponents of the proposals say backers are using familiar rhetoric to advance a racist agenda exploiting fear to attack outsiders”: 

“It’s a resurrection of the ‘Yellow Peril’: We are outsiders who are threats,” said Russell Jeung, a professor of Asian American studies at San Francisco State University. “They are creating policies that aren’t grounded in evidence or sound economic analysis, but are really based on stereotypes and outsized fears. And it works.” 

Manjusha Kulkarni, executive director of AAPI Equity Alliance and founder of Stop AAPI Hate said, “It is scapegoating, it’s stigmatizing, and it plays into the view of Chinese Americans and Asian Americans as the perpetual foreigner: They can never be American enough, and when you put these policies into place, you perpetuate that stigma and the attacks on Asian Americans.” 

Lawmakers seeking the restrictive legislation fear that the Chinese government is exploiting the openness of our society to spy, steal trade secrets, and otherwise undercut the United States by controlling critical supply chains. As of 2019, Smithfield Foods, a Chinese-owned company, held 76 percent of Chinese-owned farmland across the nation. They export pork products to China as the country seeks food resources around the world.  

A recent report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission warned that China’s need for food is driving its efforts to buy farmland abroad, along with buying or stealing the technology behind genetically modified crops, sophisticated livestock management systems, and advanced farming equipment. 

“The United States is a global leader in all of these fields, making it a prime trading partner and often a target of China’s efforts to strengthen its agriculture sector and food security, sometimes through illicit means,” the report said. “These efforts present several risks to U.S. economic and national security.” 

Foreign investment in the United States — especially from North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China — should be questioned and monitored as a potential threat. American lawmakers are on the right path to keeping our land secure while protecting our nation’s sovereignty.